Examination of Witness (Questions 468
- 479)
TUESDAY 18 JANUARY 2000
BARONESS HAYMAN
Chairman
468. Baroness Hayman, thank you very much indeed
for coming before us in this Committee in our last evidence session
on our inquiry into the segregation of GM foods. I hope you will
understand that we have taken a very narrow and specific area
in the GM debate to try to produce some worthwhile conclusions.
Other committees have covered a wider range of issues and there
was a very helpful debate in Westminster Hall last week which
was attended by Michael Meacher. You are the first Lords Minister
who has appeared before this Committee although you told me you
think your predecessor was Mr Rooker and we have certainly had
him before us regularly. You are very welcome indeed. Can I ask
you first of all a general question and perhaps, without being
too partisan, express a view. The question is what do you think
the limits are of government responsibility generally in relation
to GM foods and GM crops? From my point of view the Government
is sometimes seen as a very articulate advocate of GM crops rather
than a neutral referee. What do you think the role of government
is?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think it is
our role to be an advocate. I do think it is our role to be a
protector, a protector of public health and a protector of the
environment. So I think there is a responsibility to safeguard
public health, which is of course predominantly around food and
food safety, and to make sure that the regulatory processes ensure
that for GM food, for any novel foods, and indeed for food in
general that that which is offered to the consumer is safe to
eat. So I think that is the prime responsibility and I am Food
Safety Minister which is why I saw myself as Jeff's successor
rather than Bernard Donoughue's in terms of portfolio. I think
that is one responsibility. Equally, we have a responsibility
towards the environment and to assess very carefully what the
effects of the introduction of specific GM crops with specific
properties might be on the environment. Over and above that, I
believe that we have a responsibility as a government for providing
informed consumer choice and that takes us into areas not necessarily
of regulatory processes but certainly areas such as labelling,
whether it is compulsory, or labelling in the sense of monitoring
the claims that are made for foods or products and ensuring that
they are not deceptive in any way.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr Jack has a supplementary
early on.
Mr Jack
469. You mentioned your role, Baroness Hayman,
as the Food Safety Minister. Could you sketch in briefly for my
benefit the relationship that you have on these matters with the
Department of the Environment. Is there some kind of co-ordinating
structure upon which you and Michael Meacher sit? Where is the
boundary drawn between your responsibilities on issues which are
the subject of this inquiry?
(Baroness Hayman) There is an interface, you are absolutely
right to say so, but not so much on the food issues. For example
the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which is
the regulatory body for assessing the safety of new foods, reports
at the moment to me as Food Safety Minister into MAFF. When the
Food Standards Agency is set up on April 1 and takes over that
responsibility, it will take responsibility for that. The Committee
on Releases into the Environment (ACRE) feeds into both MAFF and
to DETR and that is more around MAFF's responsibilities in terms
of agriculture looking at the potential effects of GM releases
on the agricultural environment and on other crops than perhaps
the wider bio-diversity and environmental responsibilities of
DETR so, yes, there is a lot of close working on GM issues in
general across government but particularly a lot of close working
at both official and ministerial level between Michael Meacher
and myself.
470. Is there normally one Minister who would
deem themselves to be in charge of the GM area?
(Baroness Hayman) The GM area goes enormously wide,
of course, it goes into medicine and health. I suppose in terms
of the Cabinet co-ordinating responsibility that Dr Mowlam has,
she has a responsibility for co-ordinating government response
on GM issues.
Mr Curry
471. Can I just pursue that a little further
because in the past when we have had inquiries into this matter
we have had a MAFF and a DETR Minister and Mr Meacher has been
unaccustomedly bashful today as far as I can see. Either he has
been bashful or been brushed off, I am not quite sure which is
the right one. Now we have had Mo Mowlam introduced into the conversation.
This is pretty incoherent, is it not?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think it is incoherent.
I think it is a recognition that GM issues can affect and do affect
a variety of government departments. I have not mentioned the
DTI so far but obviously the application of GM technology in industry
and bio-sciences is very important. I think Mo Mowlam's responsibilities
are for ensuring that the different strands of ministerial activity
are co-ordinated and I think the need to recognise some of those
broader issues is reflected in the Government setting up of the
two broad strategic Commissions on biotechnology, again looking
more broadly across the piece, while there are specific responsibilities,
for example the regulatory responsibilities that have to be focused
in one department or with one Minister who may be the licensing
or statutory authority for instance.
472. Do you see different departments, as it
were, taking up the cudgels for different interests. Jack Cunningham,
when he was the co-ordinater or enforcer, repeatedly said, "We
have got to realise that Britain is a major leader in the field
of biotechnology and if we look as if we are inhospitable to this
we are going to be threatened as a base for these very high-tech
industries." I do not think that is unfair. He did say that
repeatedly. Michael Meacher appears to have been the chap who
has flown the flag of consumer interest. Sometimes it is quite
difficult to decide what flag MAFF has been flying at all. Would
you accept that it has looked a little as if different Ministers
have been flying different flags and it is very difficult to find
out where the admiral is in all this?
(Baroness Hayman) I am not sure I can put myself into
your mind to see your perspective of where different Ministers
may stand. I can only answer for myself. My title within MAFF
is Food Safety Minister so I see myself as having overwhelming
responsibilities in that area and I think that is a quite clear
responsibility for someone with my portfolio within MAFF as long
as MAFF retains those responsibilities. Equally, I think the Government
overall has to make sure that we do not have different strands
of government pulling in different directions. I was trying to
articulate earlier on that we do see ourselves having prime responsibilities
in the protection of public health and the protection of the environment.
Equally, I think it is true to say that there are opportunities
or potential opportunities over a range of bio-technology issues
including GM which it would be irresponsible for any government
simply to ignore or rule out of court, whether they are advances
in medicine, whether they are industrial opportunities or whether
they are opportunities that some in agriculture see for limiting
the use of agri- chemicals and getting higher yields and better
and cheaper food to the consumer.
473. You made the distinction a few minutes
ago in response to Mr Jack and said, "I deal with the agricultural
environment and other crops but if it is not a crop then it is
DETR." It is difficult to enforce it. You cannot walk round
the edge of a field saying, "That is a bit of agriculture,
that is my responsibility. That is a weed, that is DETR's."
(Baroness Hayman) I think weeds are absolutely crucial
to agriculture.
474. So you do have a wider responsibility.
(Baroness Hayman) The margins of fields are of great
interest within the agriculture environment, as you well know.
Neat little boxes are not always available. Biodiversity issues
are in the main of course the responsibility of DETR. Agricultural
issues are the responsibility of MAFF. Because there are overlap
implications we do ensure that there is a great deal of conversation
between Ministers in the appropriate cases, that submissions come
to the two Ministers, and that officials keep up the dialogue.
Mr Mitchell
475. Can I take you back to before that detour.
You said that Government is not an advocate of GM technology.
You could have fooled me because my reading of the situation is
that the Government did indeed begin as something of an advocate
of something that was considered technologically beneficial to
British science, and in the face of a clamour produced outside
by the opponents of GM food we resiled from that position. Would
that not be an accurate reading of the situation?
(Baroness Hayman) I am looking into your perception
of what government's attitudes have been in the past. I think
that the Government has always recognised that there is a great
potential in GM technology and that there is a great potential
because of the sort of science-based industry that we want to
create and the expertise that we have in this country for exploiting
that. We have to recognise as a country those potentials and I
do not think we should inappropriately bar them. Equally, I do
not believe it is Government's job to tell people what they should
eat or make them buy things that they do not want to buy. I do
believe it is Government's job to ensure that appropriate regulatory
processes are in place and I think, yes, you are absolutely right,
there has been a growing public concern manifested particularly
in the media but also through individuals about the need for a
proper exploration of the implications of the use of these technologies
particularly in the environmentalist setting and in food so that
people can be assured as to their safety and I think that is perfectly
appropriate and the Government has responded to that.
476. The Government should be an advocate of
something that could well be a scientific advance bringing plentitude
and cheaper food and not be deterred by the clamour of the forces
of conservatism.
(Baroness Hayman) I think we have to recognise that
role and why I went back to the referee role is I think the role
of Government is to make sure that the scientific evidence and
the regulatory structure are there and that they are transparent
so that people can make their own choices. Of course, you cannot
always follow what is going on. People do change their minds.
If you think back to tomato paste, the first GM food introduced
in this country, it was not introduced by sleight-of-hand. It
was very clearly marked, there were leaflets about it and it sold
very well in supermarkets at that time. Equally, there has been
since then a change perceived in consumer attitudes and many supermarkets
now choose deliberately to make a marketing ploy of not selling
GM products. I do not think government should be up and down on
the peaks of what is out there in the market place. That is for
the market-place to determine. Equally, I do think government
should hold fast to its principles and I come back to those principles
about safety in both the environmental and health sense.
Chairman
477. Without labouring the point, I would echo
some of what Mr Curry has said. We had a great deal of trouble
getting evidence even from DETR in this inquiry. We eventually
received a memorandum which has been extremely helpful and deals
with some of the issues which go to the heart of this inquiry.
It surprised me, however, that we only got that memorandum last
week and it would have been helpful to have had it months sooner
when this inquiry was announced in the summer. There is a suspicion
in my mind that there is a lack of co-ordination between the two
government departments of state. I put it no higher than that.
(Baroness Hayman) I apologise if anything reflects
on either MAFF or myself. As far as I was concerned, I was invited
and came along. I did not understand it was a joint invitation
and that I had to bring Mr Meacher with me.
478. We have had some debate over a lot of these
inquiries and it has conveyed an impression, let us put it like
that. Let's look at MAFF specifically. What about your role now
the Food Standards Agency is up and running in relation to GM
foods, can you define that for us factually.
(Baroness Hayman) I think the vast majority of my
role in relation to GM foods will pass over to the Food Standards
Agency, that is in relation to both food for human consumption
and for animal feed. The responsibilities that will stay with
MAFF are the responsibilities that relate to what I was talking
about earlier, the agricultural implications of GM technology,
new plants, seed listing, those sorts of issues, but as far as
food safety is concerned that will transfer over on 1 April to
the Food Standards Agency.
479. Thank you. Let us look at some more factual
stuff. We have discussed already briefly Dr Cunningham's announcement
about the establishment of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology
Commission and of course the Human Genetics Commission although
that is not relevant to this Committee. In its response to the
Environmental Audit Committee's Report the Government said that
the Commission was being set up. In the most recent memorandum
we have had from MAFF there are further hints. I think it says
at the end of the report that the Commission "is expected
to start work shortly". So what is the current position?
(Baroness Hayman) You need a Civil Service lexicon
to know what "shortly" means.
|
